Of course - it is a "Norton" product. More specifically it is a Symantec product - they have managed to take virtually every excellent product line they have absorbed and turn it into an unmitigated disaster in 2 revisions or less.
I've quit using every symantec product I have ever used (and over the years, that is a LOT of product) because there are better alternatives to virtually everything they produce or market today - and half of them are free!!!)
At this point you can still buy "perpetual license" versions of both Office and Adobe's products.
Nobody is forcing you to rent Office 365. You can still buy Office
2016 Home and Student, Home and Business, as well as Professional. in the retail market.. Sure, professional costs $520 Canadian, while Personal 365 is only $69 per year or $7 per month. Home and office 2016 is only $260, Home and Student is $150.Comes down to the old addage -" if you want first quality oats you need to be willing to pay first quality price. If you are willing to settle for (or are intent on buying) oats that have already gone through the horse, those DOcome a little cheaper"
Can't blame Microsoft for responding to market forces that dictate the lowest price wins, and damn the consequences!!.
Microsoft is attempting to respond to market forces. Vista totally misread the market and died a very quick death (as well it should have)
If Americans and Canadians in particular vote with their wallets, Microsoft will continue in the direction those votes dictate. If you buy the 365 option, that is the direction Microsoft will continue. If you shun the "product as a service"model and but the higher priced perpetual licence products, that is the direction Microsoft will go.
Microsoft has not become the giant it is by continuously misreading the market or by mis-responding to the market .
Not when IE11 supports everything back at least to IE8 with it's built-in compatability mode..
So have I - 26 years and counting
An "image" can be incompatible and unrecoverable to a new machine, and is reliant on the imaging software. (just like the old "backup" programs) Not so a "clone" - and with the price of media (hard drives in particular) keeping an uptodate "clone " of important drives is not an onerous job.
That clone can be put into any compatible machine and with a few driver changes be up and running in no-time - EXEPT on newer computers implementing the EUFI bios system.
I'm sure there is a way around that bugaboo too, but I haven't gotten there yet.
Been digging those ditches for 26 years. And every few years they throw different clay and rocks into the mix, so you need to develop different picks and shovels to dig the ditch. The filling of the ditches tends to be automatic - so you end up redigging the same ditch time after time if you don't shore up the walls effectively.
What do you expect with a "free" OS from a for-profit corporation?? It's going to be paid for one way or another.
Between IOS, Windows, and Android I've decided for myself and my requirements, Windows is the lesser of 3 evils.
| > The reason I wanted to test with IE11 was because MS | >broke compatibility in a big way with IE11 and Edge | | IE11 and Edge are two totally different browsers Edge is a "work in | process".
They're not that different. Edge is based on IE, with a lot of things removed. It's the same basic rendering engine. And a lot of those changes also affect IE11:
| Ie11 has built in compatability support and can open and | display any webpage that could be opened or viewed with 8, 9, or 10. | You may have to tell the browser to use compatability mode - but it is | there, available, and simple to implement. |
No, it isn't. Not for a web designer. You might be able to do it as the viewer, but for the person writing the webpage it requires testing the browser userAgent and then writing special code for each version of IE. As I explained above, up through IE10 there was "quirks mode". As long as I left out the DOCTYPE tag in a webpage it would be rendered old-style in all versions of IE. In IE11 quirks mode no longer works, so each IE version suddenly requires unique code if one wants to accomodate IE11, because each version of IE is incompatible with the last. That means potentially writing one webpage for all other browsers, then one each for each version of IE! And every change in design would require testing in all versions.
| Never depend on ANY OS or browser to continue to support | "undoccumented calls" or "undoccumented features" | A lot of programmers get way to "smart" for their own good.
I don't mean to be harsh, but you're talking way beyond your expertise here. None of this has anything to do with undocumented features. If you don't write graphically complex webpages by hand then there's no way you could know the implications of what's changed with IE11/Edge. For example, VBScript no longer works in IE11. VBS has been standard and documented ever since IE4. Microsoft just decided to remove support for it as of IE11. They also removed support for the IE document object model. That's to say that the actual script code, whether VBS or javascript, can no longer be written in accord with the language as officially defined and documented by Microsoft since IE4. A few versions back that was the *only* way it could be coded. It will work in IE10 compatibility mode, but that means writing different webpages for different IE versions, as noted above, because IE10 mode is not going to display the same way as quirks mode, IE8 mode, IE 9 mode, etc.
It's complicated and I expect few people really care about the details. But the long and the short of it is that Microsoft has made a calamity of IE for over 15 years now. It's a bit like the way refrigerators are made these days. With Firefox, Chrome, Safari it's like a refrigerator that's put together with only #2 phillips head screws. So you only need one tool to fix dozens of refrigerator types. The version doesn't matter. They've always been made that way. Internet Explorer is like a typical refrigerator: One screw is phillips. Another is a hex head. Another is a torx head. Then there might be 3 sizes of square drive. You have to have a big toolbox to work on it. Now imagine that they also change several of those screws on each model, in a vaguely defined attempt to become more standardized. So now you have no idea what you'll find if you go to fix a frig. You'll need to carry a big toolbox. That's analogous to what Microsoft has done with IE. In many respects they did it with good intentions. But it's nevetheless a big mess.
Same here. I do not mind paying but don't like the pestering that can come with free stuff.
Short look at Linux told me I'd be paying for it with sweat equity.
I like to use computers. I like to use my cars. But, I don't care to be tinkering under the hood with either.
+1
Every situation we have run accross with web pages that did not work properly in IE11 have been solved by using compatability mode.
Even those that were just way too fancy and complicated than they needed to be.
Taking the browser out of the equasion completely, many of these pages would be totally useless on a dialup or slow network connection to start with.. Web designers as a "breed" tend to totally over-design web pages, adding complexity only because they can. The ability to "enhance" the page has totally outstripped the need, and the ability of the majority to access the content reliably.
Quirks or not.
And that is also what way too many web designers have done with the design of the web-pages. Your toolbox is too full of tools that are incompatible with the refrigerator you are building UNLESS you use a whole lot of different "screws" etc.
IE8 was. We have an application that uses JavaScript client side as JSP on the server. The JavaScript engine in the earlier IE iterations was so poor it would take 25 to 30 seconds to render a page that was almost instantaneous on Chrome or Firefox. The Chakra engine in IE9 was better and has been improved over the years. With many sites now using Javascript extensively both server and client side they have to do something even if they are allergic to anything with 'java' in the name.
That may have been part of Ballmer's war on Linux as anything. Fortunately the Linux distros soon were able to cope with it.
Cygwin has had that problem. They used an undocumented variable in ntdll.dll and MS kept moving the cheese.
otoh, some are too anal. That was the death of XHTML. It was a noble ambition but with millions of HTML documents that weren't legal XHTML it didn't attract support. If anything HTML5 is even more forgiving.
I like html old school, like. Code by hand w/o any templates.
We had the mistaken impression that some clients were using Norton Security so we installed it on a couple of machines for testing. That was strictly the consumer version from Aunt Emily who doesn't have a clue and needs to be protected from the cold, cruel world.
Symantec Endpoint is actually what out clients tend to use. As such, we give them a list of directories that need to be excluded from the scans. Still, Symantec sometimes quarantines a few of our executables and we have to submit a request for them to keep their paws off.
McAfee is even worse. A little searching will turn up a video by John McAfee that leaves no doubt about what he thinks of the mess they've turned it into. Peter Norton isn't as shit house crazy as McAfee but I'd imaging he has a few juicy comments about his namesake.
|> The ability to |> "enhance" the page has totally outstripped |> the need, and the ability |> of the majority to access the content reliably.
|> Quirks or not.
....
|> You'll need to carry a | >big toolbox. That's analogous to what Microsoft | >has done with IE. In many respects they did it | >with good intentions. But it's nevetheless a big | >mess. | > | And that is also what way too many web designers have done with the | design of the web-pages. Your toolbox is too full of tools that are | incompatible with the refrigerator you are building UNLESS you use a | whole lot of different "screws" etc.
Your talking nonsense and hearsay. And you've completely misinterpreted my analogy. As usual, you just have to be the expert, even when you don't know anything about the topic.
Yes, many webpages are overproduced. Some pages now use 1/4 MB of javascript. But that has nothing to do with the problems of IE. And you know nothing about my "toolbox".
My webpages are all lean and coded by hand with no need for script, ActiveX, Flash, JSON, HTML5, or anything else other than vanilla HTML and CSS that's been supported for many years. Nothing "cutting edge". Nothing overly complex.
I use a little script in my pages for IE only because older versions of IE don't support the CSS that all other browsers have supported for many years. My pages for all other browsers have no script. All of my pages work perfectly in every version of every browser currently in use, except for IE11 and Edge. To support those would take a lot of work. For you to tell me I'm mistaken about that, when you don't even know anything about webpage coding or browser differences, is beyond ridiculous.
You may be finding all pages work fine in IE11. That's fine if it's working for you. It really depends, though, on what sites you visit. And a browser that "always works if we use compatibility mode" is hardly a good browser. No one should need that. There's no compatibility mode in Firefox. It just works.
Speak of the devil.... I just came across this:
Yet another forced Win10 update that's making unwanted changes, this time setting default programs to Microsoft versions for many people. And yet another case of Microsoft claiming they didn't actually mean for it to do that. It appears to be the Facebook strategy: Make changes, then backtrack
*if necessary*.
I've already made that decision: XP is the end of the MS line, for me. I'll buy a Mac if I have to move to anything "new".
If all you want is a browser, you don't even need a full-featured OS. Most folks using computers want more than just a browser. This is especially true of students.
I haven't given MS a dime since the last commercial version of their C++ compiler: Microsoft C/C++ 7.0 (predated Visual C++ 1.0). I interrupted their (telephone!) support guy's "script" handling of my call, read him a 5 line code snippet, told him to compile it -- then waited for him to see the bug.
"Yup! That's a bug (passing a pointer to a member function, or something like that)! But, we no longer support that product. However, as a registered user, you're entitled to an upgrade to our new product (read: "new set of bugs") for just..."
Since then, all of my software work has been done under one of the free BSD's. And, every MS OS I've obtained by using factory reinstall disks -- which *usually* agreed with the CoA on the machine in front of me.
Have you seen the projections for MS's future growth/revenues? The past basis for their business model is falling apart. Got to figure out how to generate new, ONGOING revenue streams. XP screwed up their business model -- the lemmings didn't eagerly trade in their old OS for "new and improved".
How many folks do you think subscribe to a VoIP provider? By far, *business* has swallowed that pill, not individuals. Most individuals are moving to cell phone only communications.
And, last figure I saw for businesses showed something like a 5% adoption rate.
We have neither cable nor (commercial) VoIP -- despite our ISP being very heavily into the latter.
We don't play games. I spend enough time WORKING at the computer and am not keen on using it for anything more than that! HTPC is a turnkey appliance -- cheaper and more maintainable than buying a DVD player! (I can replace the DVD drive in literally
10 seconds WHILE the machine is running)Exactly. I go through an "asset review cycle" each year end. What tools do I want to retire, which do I want to upgrade, how do I want to reallocate my capabilities given my expected needs in the NEXT year.
So, once a year, I am *keenly* aware of what it costs to upgrade or reshuffle applications. Even if it's something as "simple" as installing a larger disk drive!
As a result, my "maintenance strategy" has been tweaked each year to reflect the pains encountered from the previous efforts.
That's why embedded systems are so much more rewarding! You deal with users *once* -- through their agent (The Marketing Guy) before you start the design. As changes/upgrades are expensive once kit is deployed in the field (i.e., purchased), it's "speak now or forever hold your peace".
Of course, for the very same reason, you get to make *zero* mistakes! You can't rely on your users to figure out what's wrong with your design or implementation and "advise" you of the needed changes. It's all sink or swim!
I bought my first PC 30 years ago. Been doing "this" for closer to 40. Priot to the PC, using CP/M (MP/M) boxes and "development systems" (think 8" floppy disks with 64KB of memory)
Images take many forms. I can recreate a carbon copy of a drive from one of my images -- if the targeted drive is the exact same size. At the same time, I can install that image on a *larger* drive (or, on a different *partition* of a larger drive) and get the same performance/viability.
If I move it to another machine, Windows is likely to complain if some driver is no longer appropriate. Now I've got to tweek the "installation" in the hopes of making it work. And, any hardware that is simply *missing* will cause software that relies upon it to not work (unless I can compensate).
For my Eunice boxes, an image will uneventfully reinstall on a new drive and boot properly (because I am very careful about building custom kernels that support the varieties of hardware that I encounter -- not a "kitchen sink" approach).
An issue I will gladly avoid -- sticking to XP.
When you are supporting your own (personal) IT, you have far more leeway in deciding HOW you want to tackle the jobs. You don't have outside pressures dictating when/how you must upgrade, etc.
[Well, clients want to pressure you to use the tools that they've adopted. You can either refuse, bill them for a license to purchase said tool for your own use -- and install it on a "discardable" machine -- or evaluate their suggestion to see if the acquisition "makes sense" from your expected business plans.]E.g., I spent $3K on an AutoCAD license 25+ years ago for a project. I've not updated the license in the years since. Yet, it has served me well -- letting me take advantage of hardware upgrades for improved performance (in 1990, I would let a machine sit for 24 hours just attempting to render ONE scene!). Clients in the years since have never complained that the documents I've provided weren't created on the latest-and-greatest version of the tool. They "work" just fine.
All those upgrade$ averted! :>
Norton was notorious for using undocumented hooks into products. So, likely to break any time you made some unexpected change (upgrade) to your system.
For a ghost replacement, clonezilla works fine. Or, the partimag, etc. tools contained within. For me, the advantage is that I can examine the code and figure out how to make it do what I want/need "when/if things go wonky". COTS solutions seem to go to great pains not to document ANYTHING either intentionally (security by obscurity) or out of economy (why spend money documenting something that folks shouldn't NEED to understand... and then have to *support* that particular implementation).
[I was a strong advocate of Ventura Publisher (when owned by Xerox). Once Corel purchased it and started obscuring document details (efficiency?), it left me (and my documents) at the mercy of their "latest implementation"; I could no longer go into a raw document and "fix" things that their software couldn't.]
MS has a vested interest in churning implementations just for the sake of change. Look at how long it took them to "discover" multitasking, user accounts, protection domains, etc.
"Microsoft: bringing 1970's technology to the 21st century!"
Micro == small; soft == limp. Hmmm, I wonder what Bill was thinking when he came up with THAT name??
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.